Below is my column in the New York Post on the next step in the effort to disqualify former president Donald Trump in the 2024 election. I believe that the Colorado opinion will be set aside, but it is not finality but clarity that we need from the United States Supreme Court.
Here is the column:
In his book Profiles of Courage, John F. Kennedy discussed figures who answered the call of history and how such defining moments are “an opportunity that sooner or later is presented to us all.” That moment will now be presented to nine justices of the United States Supreme Court after a divided decision of the Colorado Supreme Court to disqualify Donald Trump in the 2024 election.
The test for the U.S. Supreme Court is not just what they should do, but how they should do it. As an institution, the Court is often called upon to seize such moments to bring unity and clarity on our core values. That is why this insidious opinion must not only be unequivocally but unanimously overturned.
The Colorado decision to bar Donald Trump from the ballot will be overturned because it is wrong on the history and the language of the 14th Amendment.
Dead wrong.
The question is whether the US Supreme Court will speak with one voice, including the three liberal justices.
As with the three Democratic state justices who refused to sign off on the Colorado opinion, these federal justices can now bring a moment of unity not just for the court but the country in rejecting this shockingly anti-democratic theory.
For years, the disqualification theory has been treated like some abstract parlor game for law professors.
While Democrats called for the disqualification of 120 House members, it was treated as a fringe theory.
It has now lost its charm as a legal brain teaser.
As I have previously written, the disqualification of Trump is based on the use of a long-dormant provision in Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.
After the Civil War, House members were outraged to see Alexander Stephens, the Confederate vice president, seeking to take the oath with an array of other former Confederate senators and military officers.
They had all previously taken the same oath and then violated it to join a secession movement that claimed the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans.
That was a true rebellion.
January 6, 2021, was a riot.
That does not excuse those who committed crimes that day — but it was not an insurrection.
The majority on the Colorado Supreme Court adopted sweeping interpretations of every element of the decision to find that Trump not only incited an insurrection, but can be disqualified under this provision.
It does not matter that Trump has never been charged with even incitement or that he called for his supporters to go to the Capitol to protest “peacefully.”
In finding that Trump led an actual insurrection, the four justices used speeches going back to 2016 to show an effort to rebel before Trump was ever president.
There are ample grounds to summarily toss this opinion to the side.
However, that would not answer the call of this historic moment.
What these four justices did was a direct assault on our democratic process in seeking to bar the most popular candidate in the upcoming election.
Whatever the view of Trump, this is a decision that should rest with the voters.
No only are these four justices seeking to bar the votes of millions of voters (even barring the counting of write-in votes), but they are doing so in the name of democracy.
It is the ballot cleansing that is usually associated with authoritarian countries like Iran, where voters are protected from “unworthy” candidates.
Justice Robert Jackson once observed that he and his colleagues “are not final because we are infallible, we are infallible because we are final.”
A decision on Colorado could put this theory to rest by the sheer finality of the appeal.
However, it is not the finality that is needed at this moment. We need clarity. Clarity of purpose and principle.
The Supreme Court plays a unique role in our system at times like these.
It must at times defy us in rejecting racism as cases such as Brown v. Board of Education.
At other times, it has protected in rejecting government overreach as in cases such as Katz v. United States, demanding warrants to overcome the reasonable expectation of privacy.
This is a time where it can unify us.
The court holds the ultimate “bully pulpit” that can educate citizens on what defines us as a people.
Most people understand intuitively that what these four justices did in Colorado was wrong.
However, the court can speak as one — conservatives and liberals — in reaffirming the core values discarded by these state justices.
In that sense, it may be the greatest test of Chief Justice John Roberts.
Roberts once observed that “the most successful chief justices help their colleagues speak with one voice.”
Past chief justices from John Marshall to Earl Warren struggled to secure unanimous votes on fundamental cases to reaffirm such defining values.
The court could help unify this country in a way that may be unparalleled in its history.
It can show that justices who hold vastly different ideological views can be unified on core principles.
It can remind us that, as citizens, the Constitution is ultimately not a covenant with the government but with each other.
It is a leap of faith that, as a free people, we can decide our shared destiny and protect our shared identity.
The moment has come for nine justices to speak in one voice.
An American voice that transcends the personalities and divisions of our time.
It is a voice that speaks not to what divides us but what defines us as a people.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, where he teaches a course on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
If removing major candidate, at least potentially qualifiable, from ballot abridges the right to vote,
should Colorado and states following its lead or retaliating against Biden lose ALL their seats in the House under 14th Section 2 ?
They won’t. They are only interested in box checking, and the affirmative action appointees don’t put in the work.
Well said Professor Turley, I agree with every word on this one.
This isn’t about democrat or republican and it isn’t about who you like or don’t like this is about America and who we are.
Everyone knows I’m not a Trump fan and I never was a supporter but I suppose you could call me a supporter now at least in relation to my support for his being on the Ballot in EVERY state including Colorado. It isn’t about Trump even.
Like you’ve made resoundingly clear to the bobble-heads on the news shows who can barely interpret what you’re saying, if they can do it here then anyone can do it to anyone moving forward and we have no electoral process then. Just a political one where those in power make the decisions for the people.
Last I checked the people of the United States decide who the President is or is not. And sounds like most of them want Trump back. And after all he was President and he didn’t start any wars unlike Biden who’s drug us into two already and is trying to start WWIII.
I don’t know frankly who I’m voting for if you want to know the Truth. I like Kennedy but not sure yet.
I know who I’m not voting for though, I know I’m not voting for Biden. We can’t afford 4 more years of him, at least us working class poor can’t. He’s breaking our backs.
I frankly don’t see me voting for Trump either. But I at least deserve to have the right to make that choice myself.
And here’s the rub.
I never even would have considered Trump before, any more than I’d have considered Clinton or Biden but now, …that “they” are telling people that they can’t vote for him, … something in me makes me at least want to consider it.
Go figger…
I agree with much of what Chris Webber says. I too would like to see a unanimous Supreme Court decision on this, but it is hard for me to see the likes of Ketanji Brown Jackson signing on to a majority decision. I don’t know much about the inner workings of the Court, but her actions so far don’t suggest much sensitivity to the significance of the moment.
Augustus H. Garland, Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar
Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar, Augustus H. Garland
Augustus H. Garland (38th United States Attorney General In office March 6, 1885 – March 4, 1889), Confederate States Senator from Arkansas In office November 8, 1864 – May 10, 1865. Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States In office January 18, 1888 – January 23, 1893, entered active service in the Confederate army, where he and his law partner C. H. Mott organized the 19th Mississippi Regiment of volunteers in Oxford. Commision a Lt Col.) Were these gentlman bared from serving. There are others. Some elected both to the US house and US Senate. Some of those even held commisions in the CSA.
Sir I understand the in all likelihood that will not see this message. But if feel compled to comment. Below is a partial list of people who servied in the Legistlature of the Confederate States of America. Post war then ran and were elected to both State and Fedral office.
Augustus H. Garland, Alexander H. Stephens, John H. Reagan, Robert M. T. Hunter, Augustus Maxwell, Benjamin Harvey Hill, James Lawrence Orr, Allen T. Caperton John Perkins Ralls, Jabez L. M. Curry, David Clopton, Julian Hartridge ,Willis B. Machen. Just to name a few. Please take note of these individuals. Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar. Alexander H. Stephens (50th Governor of Georgia In office November 4, 1882 – March 4, 1883.) Augustus Emmet Maxwell (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida In office 1887–1889), Benjamin Harvey Hill (United States Senator from Georgia In office March 4, 1877 – August 16, 1882). James Lawrence Orr (United States Ambassador to Russia In office December 12, 1872 – May 5, 1873). Julian Hartridge (After the war he returned to politics, and was elected as a Democrat to the Forty-fourth Congress and the Forty-fifth Congress, serving from 1875 until his death in Washington, D.C. in 1879.
And finnaly Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar (Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States In office January 18, 1888 – January 23, 1893)
Augustus H. Garland 38th United States Attorney General In office March 6, 1885 – March 4, 1889). All of the men held positions both elect and appointed in the CSA. But they were not bared.
Thank you this moment to voice my opion.
We need an insurrection. Or whatever. Call it what you will. The last one was fought over a lack of representation and taxes. The same thievery continues to this day. I am represented as our leaders have plunged the U.S. into 33 trillion dollars of debt?
“The national debt of the U.S. reached a historic milestone by passing $33 trillion for the first time, the U.S. Department of the Treasury said.”
That ain’t nuthin. While we sink, our best and brightest engage in matters of real consequence: Hunter is depraved, indeed, never worked a day in his life, earned millions for daddio,, but trust us, our President has no idea how all that bread showed up in his coffers.
To rationalize Colorado’s politically motivated court decision, the Left says: Trump was not found guilty of the crime of insurrection.
So apparently, “insurrection” is not a crime (at least today). It’s just a civil thingy (at least today).
In reality, the Left’s mental contortions over “insurrection” are yet another example of its MO: The ends (“get Trump”) justifies the means (a thoroughly contradictory meaning of “insurrection.”)
Ah, yes, Sam proceeds once again by pretending that “the Left” is arguing x, when there is no spokesperson for the Left and no individual on the left here is arguing x, and then Sam continues from his false set up to his desired conclusion. You must have been a sh***y logic teacher.
And you must suck big green donkey d!cks
🤡🤡🤡🤡 to 👨⚖️🧑⚖️👨⚖️ ruling
One of the biggest challenges humans face is confirmation bias; their inability to reason beyond the echo chamber they are comfortable in. You seem to be prone to that, unless trolling Professor Turley’s site is the joy of your life. In which case you have my sympathy.
Of course it was not an insurrection, Democrats will lie about that forever. Even more disturbing is the Colorado court’s decision. Just as a basic starting point, President Trump has never been convicted of ANY crime. I thought in America one was innocent until PROVEN guilty. It’s plain to see from Democrat decisions and support, that the Democrat Party are the true fascists in America.
Professor Turley Writes:
“The question is whether the U.S. Supreme Court will speak with one voice, including the three liberal justices”.
……………………………
The three liberal justices have no obligation to ignore all the testimony taken by the January 6th Committee.!
Just because Jim Jordan wasn’t on that committee, doesn’t mean, for a moment, that all that testimony should be stricken from the record. Those were legal depositions; most of which concerned former White House insiders.
Legal depositions were also taken in the Dominion Voting Systems lawsuit against Fox News. Those depositions revealed that a number of people at Fox News doubted Trump’s election claims.
Yet Fox News deliberately misinformed its viewers on Trump’s behalf by broadcasting false election claims over and over.
So this idea that the three liberal Justices have some obligation to pretend Donald Trump is untainted by January 6th is insulting to the country.
Trump needs to stand trial ‘before’ he runs for president. And in a normal America, no party would want Trump on their ticket.
No candidate has ever been thought of as irreplaceable. Turley’s Harris Poll link found that 63% want a choice other than Trump and Biden.
Trump is going to be trouble no matter what!
You have zero credibility. You obviously and transparently hate Trump because he’s a threat to your desire to keep the Democrat Party Status Quo (which you also know that no sane person in America wants, even mainstream Democrats, if there are any sane ones left).
Now, that’s fine. You are what you.
But you nonetheless feel compelled to play the stupid game that there are verfiable, rational, logical, and legal evidence to support your particular cult, when you know you have to twist, distort, mangle, or create out of thin air your absurd version of the “facts” and the “evidence.”
You do this over and over. And it’s tedious.
iT’S FUNNY. sHE BELIEVES SHE CAN FOOL ANYONE as stupid as she is. They are already on her side. Juan R Sanchez is a corrupt, dictatorial criminal who presides in the Eastern District of PA because he sold his soul to rule in favor of his wealthy friends. Our judicial system has collapsed under the weight of the grave debauchery plunging our nation into chaos.
Quite the spagetti logic you got there anon.
Stand trial for what exactly? And what is normal nowadays when the Dems have weaponized the DOJ to destrpoy anything Trump?
You need to consider your vapid claims and get somone, not here, to schol you in logic.
@seanmdav
“Joe Biden is imprisoning his political opponents while his friends cheer the murder of Jews and his administration funnels cash to Hamas and Iran, but yeah it’s the other guy who’s Hitler.”
The outstanding podcaster and attorney known as Viva Frei has done an outstanding job of demonstrating why the SCOTUS has no option but to throw out the Colorado Supreme Court’s own insurrection attempt.
Viva Frei does this by presenting in simply, lay terms, his explication of the dissenting opinions of the judges who opposed the majority decision. Note that the mainstream media, even Fox, has barely touched the content of these dissenting voices:
If this stands, I will not be in Colorado to vote next November.
Since we are channeling the civil war I would offer that this is for Biden and Democrats what Gettysburg was for Lee and Copnfederates.
This is the bridge too far.
Turley is demanding a 9-0 decision – quickly.
WaPo is.
Slate is.
As Napolean said
Do not interfere when your enemy is making a fatal mistake.